FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
'Planet Toxic' : The Hard Facts
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Health
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7594

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:19 pm    Post subject: 'Planet Toxic' : The Hard Facts Reply with quote


Comprehensive links referenced in a
BreakForNews Special Report on our Toxic Planet.


Here's the relevant audio:
http://www.breakfornews.com/audio/InsideTrackNews060321.mp3



UK radiation jump blamed on Iraq shells

Mark Gould and Jon Ungoed-Thomas

RADIATION detectors in Britain recorded a fourfold increase in uranium levels in the atmosphere after the “shock and awe” bombing campaign against Iraq, according to a report.

Environmental scientists who uncovered the figures through freedom of information laws say it is evidence that depleted uranium from the shells was carried by wind currents to Britain.

The report shows that within nine days of the start of the Iraq war on March 19, 2003, higher levels of uranium were picked up on five sites in Berkshire. On two occasions, levels exceeded the threshold at which the Environment Agency must be informed, though within safety limits. The report says weather conditions over the war period showed a consistent flow of air from Iraq northwards.
http://www.breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=498





SWEDISH SCIENTIST FINDS CELL PHONE HAZARDS “TERRIFYING”
Unfortunately for anyone still in ignorance or denial about putting the equivalent of a loaded pistol to their heads and pulling the trigger, new research from Sweden’s Lund University Hospital corroborates the Spanish findings. The Swedes also found that exposure to radiation emitted by mobile handsets and neighborhood relay towers can destroy cells in the parts of the brain responsible for memory, movement and learning.

Professor Leif Salford, the neurologist who carried out 15 years of research said, “We saw opening of the blood-brain barrier even after a short exposure to radiation at the same level as mobile phones.”

Salford added, "We had already shown that mobile phone radiation can allow harmful proteins and toxins to pass through the blood-brain barrier. Now we also see a significant degree of damage to neurons in the brains of adolescent rats. If this effect is transferred to young humans the effects can be terrifying." [Daily Mail Nov6/99]

CELL PHONES EXPOSE BRAIN CELLS TO BLOODSTREAM POSIONS
A study by Finish scientist Darius Leszczynski published in the journal Differentiation shows that several hundred chemicals operating in a certain type of human brain cells could be altered by the weak microwaves broadcast by mobile phones.

The blood-brain barrier normally keeps toxins and microorganisms circulating in the blood out of the brain. But Prof Leszczynski found that at the legal limit for mobile radiation, a blood-brain barrier protein named HSP 27 became ineffectual in keeping blood poisons out of brain cells. [The Guardian June20/02]

Proteins found in the blood can, if they get to the brain, cause autoimmune diseases such as Fibromyalgia and Multiple Sclerosis. Damaged nerve cells could also lead to dementia, premature aging, and Parkinson's disease. Brain cells inflamed by cell phone conversations are also indirectly be linked to Alzheimer's disease.

In addition to these potential personal disasters, medication that under normal circumstances wouldn't be able to penetrate the blood-brain-barrier could do so and cause damage. [British Library Net Sept14/03]

READ The Rest of This Report:
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=910#910



New Phones Danger

by Robbie Collin News of the World, 5th February 2006

Cordless handsets 100 times worse than mobiles, say experts.

Having a cordless phone in your house can be 100 times more of a health risk than using a mobile. The popular phones constantly blast out high levels of radiation - even when they are not in use. Landlines are widely thought a safer option than mobiles. But researchers in Sweden now warn cordless phones are far more likely to cause brain tumours than today's mobiles.

Emissions from a cordless phone's charger can be as high as six volts per metre - twice as strong as those found with a 100 metres of mobile masts. Two metres away from the charger the radiation is still as high as 2.5 volts per metre - that's 50 times what scientists regard as a safe level.

Powerful

At a metre away the danger is multiplied 120 times - and it only drops to a safe 0.05 volts per metre when you are 100 metres away from the phone. Because of the way cordless phones work, the charger constantly emits radiation at full strength even when the phone is not in use - and so does the handset when it is off the charger.

The most common cancers caused by such radiation are leukaemias. But breast cancer, brain tumours, insomnia, headaches and erratic behaviour in kids have also been linked. Those with chargers close to their beds are subjected to radiation while they sleep.

Phone watchdog Powerwatch, using a testing device called the Sensory Perspective Electrosmog Detector, even found electromagnetic fields as strong as three volts per metre in a bedroom above a room holding a cordless phone.
http://www.campaignfortruth.com/Eclub/060306/CTM%20-%20cordlessphonedanger.htm


Baby Monitors give off deadly radiation

News of the World Sunday February 19, 2006 Page: 39

BABIES are being put at risk of cancer by hi-tech cot monitors which emit deadly radiation, it is claimed.

Parents will be horrified to learn that slow-pulsing microwaves blasted out by modern digital equipment may cause leukaemia, say scientists.

Lab tests have also linked the radiation to potentially fatal brain tumours, breast cancer, headaches and disturbed behaviour patterns in kids.

Consumer group Powerwatch has urged parents to ditch digital (DECT) monitors.

Boss Alasdair Philips said: "We don't recommend they are used. Do not put a wireless transmitter in your child's bedroom and irradiate them unnecessarily."

Emissions, even if the monitor is not in use, can reportedly reach six volts per metre-TWICE as strong as those found within 100 metres of mobile phone masts.

"We have had a number of reports from parents that their babies did not sleep well and cried a lot when they used DECT monitors but were ok when no baby monitor was used. When they then tried a cheaper analogue monitor, the infant then slept as well as they did with no monitor."

http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1616128/


Transportation is the leading source of global warming emissions in Massachusetts.

The state’s cars, trucks and other transportation vehicles emit more carbon dioxide – the leading global warming gas – than the entire economies of more than 140 other nations, including Peru, Croatia and Lebanon.
http://masspirg.org/MA.asp?id2=21825&id3=MA&id4=MAHP


The Harmful Effects of Vehicle Exhaust - A Case for Policy Change

Most people assume that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is sufficiently protecting air quality by setting limits for chemicals released from vehicles, requiring newer engines to be less polluting, and restricting levels normally found in outdoor air. It is clear, however, that these efforts are not enough to protect health, as they limit only a small percentage of all chemicals that are emitted from engines, leaving hundreds of pollutants unmonitored and unregulated. While the government monitors pollutants at fixed stations, these measurements bear little resemblance to the pollution you and your family experience while moving through daily life.
http://ehhi.org/reports/exhaust/default.htm


Plagued by Pollution:
Unsafe Levels of Soot Pollution in 2004


While air quality has improved in the U.S. since the inception of the Clean Air Act in 1970, more than 88 million Americans still live in areas with unsafe levels of fine particle pollution. Fine particle pollution is one of the nation’s most pervasive air pollutants and its most deadly, causing tens of thousands of premature deaths every year. This report examines levels of fine particle pollution in cities and towns nationwide in 2004 and finds that fine particles continue to pose a grave health threat to Americans.

Fine particle, or “soot,” pollution can cause serious respiratory and cardiovascular problems, including asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, lung cancer, and premature death. Moreover, recent scientific studies show that such adverse effects occur at levels below the current national health-based air quality standards...
http://uspirg.org/uspirg.asp?id2=21416


Tiny particles 'threaten brain'

By Alex Kirby BBC News Online environment correspondent

Microscopic pollutant particles given off by traffic and industry can enter the bloodstream and the brain after being inhaled, scientists have found.

The particles are known to cause lung damage in susceptible patients, and are implicated in cardiovascular disease.

Experiments on rats and humans have now discovered they can penetrate further into the body, with unknown results.

Many of us are routinely exposed to particles from diesel vehicle fumes (these are normally known as PM10, from their size), which penetrate buildings and are ubiquitous in cities.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3379759.stm


Nanoparticles in the brain
Tiny particles enter the brain after being inhaled.

by Jim Giles January 9, 2004 Nature.com

Nanoparticles - tiny lumps of matter that could one day to be used to build faster computer circuits and improve drug delivery systems - can travel to the brain after being inhaled, according to researchers from the United States1.

The finding sounds a cautionary note for advocates of nanotechnology, but may also lead to a fuller understanding of the health effects of the nanosized particles produced by diesel engines.
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news-print.cfm?art=725


Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Air Pollution and Selected
Causes of Postneonatal Infant Mortality in California


Tracey J. Woodruff, Jennifer D. Parker, and Kenneth C. Schoendorf
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2006/8484/abstract.html


Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Hospital Admission
for Cardiovascular and Respiratory...

Dominici et al.
JAMA.2006; 295: 1127-1134.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/10/1127


High Levels of Toxic Chemicals Found in Car Interiors

New Study Says Sun's Heat and UV Light Exacerbate Toxicity
Inside Vehicles, Putting Drivers and Passengers at Risk

Volvo Found to be Least Toxic Car Demonstrating Feasibility of Safe Alternatives; Other Companies Urged to Follow Suit
January 11, 2006

(Detroit, MI) -- A first-of-its-kind study released today by the Ecology Center revealed new information about toxic chemical exposure in automobile interiors. PBDEs, used as fire retardants, and phthalates, used primarily to soften PVC plastics (and partly responsible for "new car smell"), were found in dangerous amounts in dust and windshield film samples. Drivers and passengers are exposed through inhalation and contact with dust. These groups of chemicals have been linked to birth defects, impaired learning, liver toxicity, premature births and early puberty in laboratory animals, among other serious health problems.

Both PBDEs and phthalates are considered chemicals of concern due to their toxicity and ubiquity in the environment. Levels of PBDEs found in the breast milk of American women and some fetuses are approaching levels shown to impair learning and cause behavioral problems in lab mice. These chemicals have also been linked to thyroid hormone disruption and liver toxicity in animals. One type of phthalate found in a large variety of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products, called DEHP, has been linked to premature birth, reproductive defects and early onset puberty in lab animals.
http://www.ecocenter.org/releases/20060111_autotoxics.shtml


Estimated Daily Phthalate Exposures in a Population of Mothers
of Male Infants Exhibiting Reduced Anogenital Distance.


Marsee, K, TJ Woodruff, DA Axelrad, AM Calafat, and SH Swan. 2006.

Last year (2005), Swan et al. reported strong associations between phthalate levels measured in the urine of mothers and altered reproductive tract development in baby boys. They found that boys with higher phthalate levels had smaller perineums, consistent with reductions in fetal exposure to testosterone. They also reported that the levels of phthalates in boys with smaller perineums were comparable to those found by CDC measurements in 25% of American women.

In this paper, Marsee et al. estimate the amount of daily exposure to phthalates that would have been necessary to cause the levels of phthalates observed in the mothers' urine reported by Swan et al.

They conclude that the levels seen in mothers in Swan's study would have been caused by exposure to phthalates approximately 100 times lower than EPA's current safety threshold for phthalates. This calculation indicates that safety standards for phathalate exposure may need to be tightened considerably.

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/oncompounds/phthalates/2006/2006-0205marseeetal.htm

...Continues in next forum post....


Last edited by Fintan on Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:31 am; edited 6 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7594

PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Teflon chemicals in food packaging

Most people know that Teflon chemicals are in cookware. However, chemical coatings used in food packaging have proven to break down into Teflon chemicals as well. Scientists are investigating human exposure from oil, stain, and grease repellent coatings on paper and cartons such as french fries boxes, sandwich wrappers, and microwave popcorn bags.

"According to 3M Company testing, Teflon chemicals are present in the blood of about 95% of people living in the United States. [PFOA or C8] linked to the coatings on take-out food cartons and raincoats is 'likely' to cause cancer in humans, according to a draft report by a panel of an independent advisory board to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/dupont_c8/consumer.htm


Report Finds Half of Breast Cancer Causes May Be Environmental

U.S. Women’s Lifetime Risk for Breast Cancer
Has Nearly Tripled since 1964

SAN FRANCISCO — Women in the United States still have a high risk of breast cancer even if they have no genetic predisposition or other commonly-accepted risk factors for the disease, according to a report released today.

“State of the Evidence 2006: What Is the Connection Between the Environment and Breast Cancer?” reports that as many as 50 percent of breast cancer cases remain unexplained by either genetics or lifestyle factors, such as a woman’s age at her first full-term pregnancy or alcohol consumption.

Instead, the report says, “compelling scientific evidence points to some of the 100,000 synthetic chemicals in use today as contributing to the development of breast cancer, either by altering hormone function or gene expression.”
http://www.breastcancerfund.org/site/pp.asp?c=kwKXLdPaE&b=1370305


Excess mercury levels increasing:

Survey shows one-fifth of women of childbearing age are affected.

One-fifth of women of childbearing age have mercury levels in their hair that exceed federal health standards, according to interim results of a nationwide survey commissioned by Greenpeace and being conducted by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Asheville (UNCA).

Researchers at UNCA based their findings on hair samples from nearly 1,500 people, many of whom learned of the study through the Internet.

One-third of people who ate canned tuna four or more times a week had mercury levels above U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommendations.

The last major national study of Americans' mercury exposure, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1999 and 2000, concluded that about 12 percent of women of childbearing age had mercury levels that exceeded EPA's safety standard. The new study found excess mercury levels in 21 percent of the 597 women of childbearing age who were tested. UNCA researchers said they could not explain why these subjects had higher mercury levels.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/newsjan05.htm


Oceana Report: Poison Plants II

Poison Plants II shows that mercury-cell chlorine plants, that use outdated mercury-cell technology to produce chlorine, continue to be one of the United States’ biggest mercury polluters.

Using the latest industry and government data, Poison Plants II shows that the only marked reduction in mercury releases to air by the nine plants that operated from 2002 to 2003 occurred as a result of one plant being idled during some of that period.
http://www.oceana.org/index.php?id=1180


Toxic Nation Report -- Group Results

A cocktail of harmful toxic chemicals has been detected in every person tested in a cross-Canada study of pollution in people.

Environmental Defence tested 11 people from across the country for the presence of 88 chemicals in their blood and urine.

Test Results
60 of 88 chemicals tested for were detected, including 18 heavy metals, five PBDEs, 14 PCBs, one perfluorinated chemical, 10 organochlorine pesticides, five organophosphate insecticide metabolites, and seven VOCs.
Of the 60 chemicals detected:
41 are suspected cancer-causing substances,
53 are chemicals that can cause reproductive disorders and harm the development of children,
27 are chemicals that can disrupt the hormone system, and
21 are chemicals associated with respiratory illnesses.

For more details read our Toxic Nation Report.
http://www.environmentaldefence.ca/toxicnation/report/groupResult.htm


A Case for Revisiting the Safety of Pesticides:
A Closer Look at Neurodevelopment


Theo Colborn University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA;

The quality and quantity of the data about the risk posed to humans by individual pesticides vary considerably. Unlike obvious birth defects, most developmental effects cannot be seen at birth or even later in life. Instead, brain and nervous system disturbances are expressed in terms of how an individual behaves and functions, which can vary considerably from birth through adulthood. In this article I challenge the protective value of current pesticide risk assessment strategies in light of the vast numbers of pesticides on the market and the vast number of possible target tissues and end points that often differ depending upon timing of exposure. Using the insecticide chlorpyrifos as a model, I reinforce the need for a new approach to determine the safety of all pesticide classes. Because of the uncertainty that will continue to exist about the safety of pesticides, it is apparent that a new regulatory approach to protect human health is needed.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7940/7940.html


Prenatal exposure to bisphenol A impairs sexual differentiation
of exploratory behavior and increases depression-like behavior in rats.


Estimated daily intake was 15 microg/kg/day, below the reference dose (RfD) in the United States
LINK


Large effects from small exposures.

The importance of positive controls in low-dose research on bisphenol A
vom Saal, F and W Welshons. 2006.

Until recently, BPA has been considered to be a weak estrogen because in some assays it can be 10,000 to 100,000-fold weaker than estradiol, based on binding affinity to the nuclear estrogen receptor. New research contradicts, this however. BPA can be just as powerful as estradiol, with detectable effects at the lowest doses tested, approximately 0.23 parts per trillion.

This conclusion is important not just for BPA. Most toxicological studies examine the impact of high-level doses and then assume that beneath the identified 'no effects level' there are no adverse effects. They never examine the effects at low doses, environmentally-relevant doses, because the assumption is that if an effect can't be seen at high doses, then it doesn't happen at low doses. For compounds that interact with hormone receptors, like BPA, this assumption can't be taken for granted. Scientists working with these systems are discovering that low dose effects can be very different from what happens at high doses, and most important, not predictable from those experiments.
LINK


PON1 status of farmworker mothers and children
as a predictor of organophosphate sensitivity.

Pharmacogenetics & Genomics. 16(3):183-190, March 2006.

The predicted range of variability in sensitivity of mothers and children in the same Latino cohort was 65-fold for DZO and 131 to 164-fold for CPO. Overall, these findings indicate that many of the newborns and some of the mothers in this cohort would be more susceptible to the adverse effects of specific organophosphorus pesticide exposure due to their PON1 status. Of particular concern are exposures of pregnant mothers and newborns with low PON1 status.
LINK


Pesticide mixtures, endocrine disruption, and amphibian declines:
Are we underestimating the impact?

Hayes, TB, P Case, S Chui, D Chung, C Haefele, K Haston, M Lee, VP Mai, Y Marjuoa, J Parker and M Tsui 2006.

Hayes et al. report that tadpoles suffered heavy mortality when exposed to a mixture of 9 pesticides, even though mortality rates were low when tadpoles were exposed to any one of the pesticides by itself . They discovered that most of the animals treated with the mixture developed a bacterial disease not observed in any of the other treatment groups.

Average mortality of tadpoles exposed to individual pesticides at 0.1 ppb was 4%, ranging from 0 to 7.8% for different pesticides.
Tadpoles exposed to the two atrazine mixtures experienced less than 10% mortality.
35% of tadpoles exposed to the mixture of 9 pesticides, each at 0.1 ppb, died.
100% of tadpoles exposed to the mixture of 9 pesticides, each at 10 ppb, died.

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/synergy/2006/2006-0124hayesetal.html


Officials Blast EPA on Perchlorate Standards

By Marla Cone, Times Staff Writer March 16, 2006

Warning that babies are especially vulnerable, a federal panel of scientists has lambasted the Environmental Protection Agency's health goal for a toxic chemical that has widely contaminated drinking water and foods, particularly in Southern California.

The EPA's new goal for perchlorate, an ingredient of solid rocket fuel, "is not supported by the underlying science and can result in exposures that pose neurodevelopmental risks in early life," wrote Melanie Marty of California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, who chairs the EPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-perchlorate16mar16,0,2915942.story


Partners in Pollution: An Assessment of Continuing Canadian and United States Contributions to Great Lakes Pollution

More than 4,000 Canadian and U.S. facilities reported pollution releases and transfers of over 627 million kilograms into the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin in 2002.
http://www.pollutionwatch.org/pub/partners.jsp

Publication - Children’s Health and the Environment in North America
A First Report on Available Indicators and Measures

http://www.cec.org/programs_projects/pollutants_health/index.cfm?varlan=english


Is human fecundity declining?
Niels E. Skakkebæk, Niels Jørgensen, Katharina M. Main, Ewa Rajpert-De Meyts, Henrik Leffers, Anna-Maria Andersson, Anders Juul, Elisabeth Carlsen, Gerda Krog Mortensen, Tina Kold Jensen and Jorma Toppari
Summary

The decreasing trends in fertility rates in many industrialized countries are now so dramatic that they deserve much more scientific attention. Although social and behavioural factors undoubtedly play a major role for these trends, it seems premature, and not based on solid information, to conclude that these trends can be ascribed to social and behavioural changes alone. There is evidence to suspect that changing lifestyle and increasing environmental exposures, e.g. to endocrine disrupters, are behind the trends in occurrence of male reproductive health problems, including testis cancer, undescended testis and poor semen quality. These biological factors may also contribute to the extremely low fertility rates. However, the necessary research is complex and requires non-traditional collaboration between demographers, epidemiologists, clinicians, biologists, wild life researchers, geneticists and molecular biologists. This research effort can hardly be carried out without major support from governments and granting agencies making it possible to fund collaborative projects within novel research networks of scientists.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2605.2005.00573.x
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
pauper



Joined: 25 Jan 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This forum is a treasure trove of information. Great job Fintan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OhZone



Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't you wonder just who is doing this to us.
Everyone, including corporate CEO's, all the VIP's, and all the elites and royalty have to live in this world too. So is $$ the real motive for keeping the toxic status quo?
________
vaaapp vaporizer


Last edited by OhZone on Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7594

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:33 am    Post subject: With Clean Air Death Rates Drop Substantially Reply with quote

Ok, so here is the hard truth on fine particulate pollution. A new study
shows that for each decrease of 1 microgram of soot per cubic meter of
air, death rates from cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness and lung
cancer decrease by 3 percent.

Now figure what happens with each 1% increase.

Quote:
Study: Death rates drop after air cleanup

By Nicholas Bakalar, The New York Times March 26, 2006

When air pollution in a city declines, the city benefits with a directly proportional drop in death rates, a new study has found.

For each decrease of 1 microgram of soot per cubic meter of air, death rates from cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness and lung cancer decrease by 3 percent -- extending the lives of 75,000 people a year in the United States. The association held even after controlling for smoking and body-mass index.

The work, described in a paper in the March 15 issue of The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, was carried out in six metropolitan areas: Watertown, Mass.; Kingston and Harriman, Tenn.; St. Louis; Steubenville, Ohio; Portage, Wyocena and Pardeeville, Wis.; and Topeka, Kan.

The participants, ages 25-74 at enrollment, were followed from 1974 through 1998.

The scientists periodically measured concentrations of soot, or particulate air pollution, in each city. At the same time, they tracked disease and mortality among 8,096 residents.

Particulate air pollution consists of a mixture of liquid and solid particles, mostly a result of fossil fuel combustion and high-temperature industrial processes. By definition, the particles have a diameter less than 2.5 microns, or about one ten-thousandth of an inch.

"For the most part, pollution levels are lower in this country than they were in the '70s and '80s," said Francine Laden, the study's lead author, "and the message here is that if you continue to decrease them, you will save more lives."

Further declines in air pollution are within reach, said Laden, an assistant professor of environmental epidemiology at Harvard. "The technology is out there," she said.

"The cities that we've covered have cleaned up considerably."

Laden said the study supported what the federal scientific advisers had advocated: tightening the air quality standard below the present 15 micrograms per cubic meter.

"There was discussion about lowering it to 12," she said, "and this study supports that."

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060326/NEWS06/603260403/1083/LIVING01
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
OhZone



Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is only for AIR pollution. How about that our ground water is polluted? Dissolved septic tank runoff, pesticide, fungacide, petroleum etc is showing up in previously clean wells.
How about that central water systems add toxic chlorine and flouride to the water which already contains many other toxic chemicals?
________
buy cheap vaporizer


Last edited by OhZone on Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aspectus



Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan Dunne AKA Nude Infant
_________________
The larger a society or confederacy, the greater the amalgamation of collective factors - which is typical of every large organization - the more aggravated the moral and spiritual degeneration of the individual. - Carl Gustav Jung
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shiver



Joined: 13 Jun 2011
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:20 pm    Post subject: Re: With Clean Air Death Rates Drop Substantially Reply with quote

We're missing a number here. How many micrograms of soot per 'meter' of air are we talking about? Without that You could have a death rate of <0% or greater than 100%. Also what is soot in chemical terms by their definition?

Just being the DA here and not saying it's not an issue, but we as individuals being bombarded with so much twisted information have to be very careful in ensuring predicate logic when assessing numbers.

pls scuze mi Pedandicity(c) [Websters 2012] but monkey mind isn't equipped to deal with this stuff without careful scrutiny.


Fintan wrote:
Ok, so here is the hard truth on fine particulate pollution. A new study
shows that for each decrease of 1 microgram of soot per cubic meter of
air, death rates from cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness and lung
cancer decrease by 3 percent.

Now figure what happens with each 1% increase.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IronClad



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 435
Location: Kent

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.nofluoride.com/phosphate_plant.cfm

All we hear off the Internet is that it's a miracle substance of avoiding cavities in teeth and that there is a conspiracy and of course all the dentists in the world say it's great. We get it in our water and in a toothpaste.

Whoever sold us on this was a genius. Whoever maintains it must be in on the scam. If it is a scam.

We don't actually know what it does, do we? Does it strengthen the enamel of our teeth to resist harmful substances?

The source, according to this link, is that it is a byproduct of a process involving fertilizer, which is otherwise considered a pollutant.

So, would someone please explain what does floride actual do.

Apparently, they don't add it to their water in mainland Europe.

Would a researcher, [they are made not born] please enlighten the people as to what floride actually does and what it's side effects are. Everything has side-effects.

This must be the best kept secret of all time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shiver



Joined: 13 Jun 2011
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know much about fluoride as it isn't something I've ever studied, but do come across a lot of snippets about how bad it is, and how it hardens enamel (making it more brittle rather than stronger).

I do know about Iodine/Iodide though, it being a Halide (as is fluoride, chloride, bromide etc - i.e. Halogen + an electropositive element). Iodine is the weakest of them, and an essential for the body, and is displaced by the other stronger halides. So that's one possible benefit to those that would like to weaken us.

I'm not speaking authoratatively here, and will defer to anyone who has a better understanding, but doesn't it affect the pineal gland? and if so, effectively would be like a radio signal jammer for the brain. Just spouting out thoughts, I've nothing to back that up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IronClad



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 435
Location: Kent

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does anyone out there know what Fluoride does?

Considering we drink the water how can Floride do anything much to our teeth? What does it do to our insides?

Sodium Fluoride is put in some tooth pastes and in one leading brand states "In case of intake of fluoride from other source consult a dentist or doctor".

With great respect of those professions, what would they tell you? Everything is great don't worry about it. If it was harmful they would not put it is our water supply, right.

Fluoride is stated to "prevent decay". It's a low abrasive. Like a fine sandpaper, perhaps.

Why the heck is it put in our water supply when it's in some tooth pastes?

If we don't know this then we don't know nothing.

On a more happy note our immune system must be well versed in combating any ill effects.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3865

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This guy does:



The results of this investigation have been doctored.

atm Neutral
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Health All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.